Fusion Versus Disk Replacement for Degenerative Conditions of the Lumbar and Cervical Spine: Quid Est Testimonium?

Orthopedic Clinics of North America

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 167-181

  Kishen, Thomas J ^a   Diwan, Ashish D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

Author keywords

Cervical; Intervertebral disk replacement; Lumbar; Spinal fusion

Indexed keywords

TITANIUM;

ADJACENT LEVEL DEGENERATION; ARTIFICIAL DISK PROSTHESIS; BACKACHE; BONE GRAFT; BONE PROSTHESIS; CERVICAL SPINE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DONOR SITE; HUMAN; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; INTERVERTEBRAL DISKECTOMY; LUMBAR DISK; NECK PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTHESIS FAILURE; PSEUDARTHROSIS; REVIEW; SPINE FUSION; SPINE SURGERY; TOTAL DISK REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ALGORITHMS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; CHRONIC DISEASE; HUMANS; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK; INTERVERTEBRAL DISK DEGENERATION; LOW BACK PAIN; LUMBAR VERTEBRAE; PROSTHESES AND IMPLANTS; PROSTHESIS DESIGN; PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION; SPINAL FUSION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 77951905201     PISSN: 00305898     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ocl.2009.12.002     Document Type: Review

References (88)

1. Frymoyer J.W., Pope M.H., Clements J.H., et al. Risk factors in low-back pain: an epidemiological survey. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 1983(65):213-218.
2. Andersson G.B.J. Epidemiological features of chronic low-back pain. Lancet 1999, 354:581-585.
3. Rao R. Neck pain, cervical radiculopathy, and cervical myelopathy: pathophysiology, natural history, and clinical evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002, 84(10):1872-1881.
4. Cote P., Cassidy J.D., Carroll L. The Saskatchewan Health and Back Pain Survey. The prevalence of neck pain and related disability in Saskatchewan adults. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998, 23(15):1689-1698.
5. Hart L.G., Deyo R.A., Cherkin D.C. Physician office visits for low back pain: frequency, clinical evaluation, and treatment patterns from a US national survey. Spine 1995, 20(1):11-19.
6. Hestbaek L., Leboeuf-Yde C., Manniche C. Low back pain: what is the long-term course? A review of studies of general patient populations. Eur Spine J 2003, 12(2):149-165.
7. Dunn K.M., Croft P.R. Epidemiology and natural history of low back pain. Eura Medicophys 2004, 40:9-13.
8. Pai S., Sundaram L.J. Low back pain: an economic assessment in the United States. Orthop Clin North Am 2004, 35(1):1-5.
9. Ekman M., Jonhagen S., Hunsche E., et al. Burden of illness of chronic low back pain in Sweden: a cross-sectional, retrospective study in primary care setting. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(15):1777-1785.
10. Walker B.F., Muller R., Grant W.D. Low back pain in Australian adults: the economic burden. Asia Pac J Public Health 2003, 15(2):79-87.
11. Martin B.I., Deyo R.A., Mirza S.K., et al. Expenditures and health status among adults with back and neck problems. JAMA 2008, 299(6):656-664.
12. Brisby H. Pathology and possible mechanisms of nervous system response to disc degeneration. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88(Suppl 2):68-71.
13. Kikuchi S. New concept for backache: biopsychosocial pain syndrome. Eur Spine J 2008, 17(Suppl 4):421-427.
14. Huang R.C., Lim M.R., Girardi F.P., et al. The prevalence of contraindications to total disc replacement in a cohort of lumbar surgical patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004, 29(22):2538-2541.
15. Wong D.A., Annesser B., Birney T., et al. Incidence of contraindications to total disc arthroplasty: a retrospective review of 100 consecutive fusion patients with a specific analysis of facet arthrosis. Spine J 2007, 7(1):5-11.
16. Auerbach J.D., Jones K.J., Fras C.I., et al. The prevalence of indications and contraindications to cervical total disc replacement. Spine J 2008, 8(5):711-716.
17. Albee F. Transplantation of a portion of the tibia into the spine for Pott's disease. JAMA 1911, 57:885-886.
18. Hibbs R.A. An operation for progressive spinal deformities. N Y Med J 1911, 93:1013.
19. Deyo R.A., Mirza S.K. Trends and variations in the use of spine surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 443:139-146.
20. Cook C., Santos G.C., Lima R., et al. Geographic variation in lumbar fusion for degenerative disorders: 1990 to 2000. Spine J 2007, 7(5):552-557.
21. Panjabi M., Henderson G., Abjornson C., et al. Multidirectional testing of one- and two-level ProDisc-L versus simulated fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(12):1311-1319.
22. Panjabi M., Malcolmson G., Teng E., et al. Hybrid testing of lumbar CHARITE discs versus fusions. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(9):959-966. [discussion: 967].
23. Ghiselli G., Wang J.C., Bhatia N.N., et al. Adjacent segment degeneration in the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86(7):1497-1503.
24. Fenton J.J., Mirza S.K., Lahad A., et al. Variation in reported safety of lumbar interbody fusion: influence of industrial sponsorship and other study characteristics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(4):471-480.
25. Sasso R.C., LeHuec J.C., Shaffrey C. Iliac crest bone graft donor site pain after anterior lumbar interbody fusion: a prospective patient satisfaction outcome assessment. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18(Suppl):S77-S81.
26. Gibson S., McLeod I., Wardlaw D., et al. Allograft versus autograft in instrumented posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion: a randomized control trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002, 27(15):1599-1603.
27. Putzier M., Strube P., Funk J.F., et al. Allogenic versus autologous cancellous bone in lumbar segmental spondylodesis: a randomized prospective study. Eur Spine J 2009, 18(5):687-695.
28. Katayama Y., Matsuyama Y., Yoshihara H., et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of posterolateral lumbar spine fusion in humans using recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2: an average five-year follow-up study. Int Orthop 2009, 33(4):1061-1067.
29. Cahill K.S., Chi J.H., Day A., et al. Prevalence, complications, and hospital charges associated with use of bone-morphogenetic proteins in spinal fusion procedures. JAMA 2009, 302(1):58-66.
30. Bono C.M., Lee C.K. The influence of subdiagnosis on radiographic and clinical outcomes after lumbar fusion for degenerative disc disorders: an analysis of the literature from two decades. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(2):227-234.
31. Buttermann G.R., Garvey T.A., Hunt A.F., et al. Lumbar fusion results related to diagnosis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1998, 23(1):116-127.
32. Glassman S.D., Carreon L.Y., Djurasovic M., et al. Lumbar fusion outcomes stratified by specific diagnostic indication. Spine J 2009, 9(1):13-21.
33. Slosar P.J., Reynolds J.B., Schofferman J., et al. Patient satisfaction after circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25(6):722-726.
34. Christensen F.B. Lumbar spinal fusion: outcome in relation to surgical methods, choice of implant and postoperative rehabilitation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 2004, 75(313):2-43.
35. Soegaard R., Bunger C.E., Christiansen T., et al. Circumferential fusion is dominant over posterolateral fusion in a long-term perspective: cost-utility evaluation of a randomized controlled trial in severe, chronic low back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(22):2405-2414.
36. Christensen F.B., Hansen E.S., Eiskjaer S.P., et al. Circumferential lumbar spinal fusion with Brantigan cage versus posterolateral fusion with titanium Cotrel-Dubousset instrumentation: a prospective, randomized clinical study of 146 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002, 27(23):2674-2683.
37. Videbaek T.S., Christensen F.B., Soegaard R., et al. Circumferential fusion improves outcome in comparison with instrumented posterolateral fusion: long-term results of a randomized clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2006, 31(25):2875-2880.
38. Fritzell P., Hagg O., Wessberg P., et al. Chronic low back pain and fusion: a comparison of three surgical techniques: a prospective multicenter randomized study from the Swedish lumbar spine study group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002, 27(11):1131-1141.
39. Han X., Zhu Y., Cui C., et al. A meta-analysis of circumferential fusion versus instrumented posterolateral fusion in the lumbar spine. Spine 2009, 34(17):E618-E625.
40. Fairbank J., Frost H., Wilson-MacDonald J., et al. Randomised controlled trial to compare surgical stabilisation of the lumbar spine with an intensive rehabilitation programme for patients with chronic low back pain: the MRC spine stabilisation trial. BMJ 2005, 330(7502):1233.
41. Brox J.I., Reikeras O., Nygaard O., et al. Lumbar instrumented fusion compared with cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic back pain after previous surgery for disc herniation: a prospective randomized controlled study. Pain 2006, 122(1-2):145-155.
42. Brox J.I., Sorensen R., Friis A., et al. Randomized clinical trial of lumbar instrumented fusion and cognitive intervention and exercises in patients with chronic low back pain and disc degeneration. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003, 28(17):1913-1921.
43. Fritzell P., Hagg O., Wessberg P., et al. 2001 Volvo Award Winner in Clinical Studies: Lumbar fusion versus nonsurgical treatment for chronic low back pain: a multicenter randomized controlled trial from the Swedish Lumbar Spine Study Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2001, 26(23):2521-2532. [discussion: 2532-4].
44. Resnick D.K., Choudhri T.F., Dailey A.T., et al. Guidelines for the performance of fusion procedures for degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Part 7: intractable low-back pain without stenosis or spondylolisthesis. J Neurosurg Spine 2005, 2(6):670-672.
45. Mirza S.K., Deyo R.A. Systematic review of randomized trials comparing lumbar fusion surgery to nonoperative care for treatment of chronic back pain. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(7):816-823.
46. Chou R., Baisden J., Carragee E.J., et al. Surgery for low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society Clinical Practice Guideline. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(10):1094-1109.
47. Ibrahim T., Tleyjeh I.M., Gabbar O. Surgical versus non-surgical treatment of chronic low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Int Orthop 2008, 32(1):107-113.
48. Szpalski M., Gunzburg R., Mayer M. Spine arthroplasty: a historical review. Eur Spine J 2002, 11(Suppl 2):S65-S84.
49. Huang R.C., Tropiano P., Marnay T., et al. Range of motion and adjacent level degeneration after lumbar total disc replacement. Spine J 2006, 6(3):242-247.
50. Lemaire J.P., Carrier H., Sariali el-H., et al. Clinical and radiological outcomes with the Charite artificial disc: a 10-year minimum follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2005, 18(4):353-359.
51. David T. Long-term results of one-level lumbar arthroplasty: minimum 10-year follow-up of the CHARITE artificial disc in 106 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(6):661-666.
52. Blumenthal S., McAfee P.C., Guyer R.D., et al. A prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemptions study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: part I: evaluation of clinical outcomes. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2005, 30(14):1565-1575. [discussion: E1387-591].
53. Guyer R.D., McAfee P.C., Banco R.J., et al. Prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of lumbar total disc replacement with the CHARITE artificial disc versus lumbar fusion: five-year follow-up. Spine J 2009, 9(5):374-386.
54. Tropiano P., Huang R.C., Girardi F.P., et al. Lumbar total disc replacement: seven to eleven-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87(3):490-496.
55. Zigler J., Delamarter R., Spivak J.M., et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-L total disc replacement versus circumferential fusion for the treatment of 1-level degenerative disc disease. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(11):1155-1162. [discussion: 1163].
56. Shim C.S., Lee S.H., Shin H.D., et al. CHARITE versus ProDisc: a comparative study of a minimum 3-year follow-up. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(9):1012-1018.
57. Guyer R.D., Tromanhauser S.G., Regan J.J. An economic model of one-level lumbar arthroplasty versus fusion. Spine J 2007, 7(5):558-562.
58. Patel V.V., Estes S., Lindley E.M., et al. Lumbar spinal fusion versus anterior lumbar disc replacement: the financial implications. J Spinal Disord Tech 2008, 21(7):473-476.
59. Levin D.A., Bendo J.A., Quirno M., et al. Comparative charge analysis of one- and two-level lumbar total disc arthroplasty versus circumferential lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(25):2905-2909.
60. Artificial intervertebral disc replacement (total disc arthroplasty). Medical Services Advisory Committee - Assessment Report Available at:, Accessed November 15, 2009. http://www.msac.gov.au/internet/msac/publishing.nsf/Content/2CDBC3816FDE8D20CA2575AD0082FD8E/%24File/1090%20-%20Artificial%20intervertebral%20disc%20replacement%20Report.pdf.
61. Anderson P.A., Puschak T.J., Sasso R.C. Comparison of short-term SF-36 results between total joint arthroplasty and cervical spine decompression and fusion or arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(2):176-183.
62. DiAngelo D.J., Roberston J.T., Metcalf N.H., et al. Biomechanical testing of an artificial cervical joint and an anterior cervical plate. J Spinal Disord Tech 2003, 16(4):314-323.
63. Eck J.C., Humphreys S.C., Lim T.H., et al. A biomechanical study on the effect of cervical spine fusion on adjacent-level intradiscal pressure and segmental motion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2002, 27(22):2431-2434.
64. Chang U.K., Kim D.H., Lee M.C., et al. Changes in adjacent-level disc pressure and facet joint force after cervical arthroplasty compared with cervical discectomy and fusion. J Neurosurg Spine 2007, 7(1):33-39.
65. Goffin J., Geusens E., Vantomme N., et al. Long-term follow-up after interbody fusion of the cervical spine. J Spinal Disord Tech 2004, 17(2):79-85.
66. Hilibrand A.S., Carlson G.D., Palumbo M.A., et al. Radiculopathy and myelopathy at segments adjacent to the site of a previous anterior cervical arthrodesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1999, 81(4):519-528.
67. Henderson C.M., Hennessy R.G., Shuey H.M., et al. Posterior-lateral foraminotomy as an exclusive operative technique for cervical radiculopathy: a review of 846 consecutively operated cases. Neurosurgery 1983, 13(5):504-512.
68. Robertson J.T., Papadopoulos S.M., Traynelis V.C. Assessment of adjacent-segment disease in patients treated with cervical fusion or arthroplasty: a prospective 2-year study. J Neurosurg Spine 2005, 3(6):417-423.
69. Iseda T., Goya T., Nakano S., et al. Serial changes in signal intensities of the adjacent discs on T2-weighted sagittal images after surgical treatment of cervical spondylosis: anterior interbody fusion versus expansive laminoplasty. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2001, 143(7):707-710.
70. Phillips F.M., Tzermiadianos M.N., Voronov L.I., et al. Effect of two-level total disc replacement on cervical spine kinematics. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(22):E794-E799.
71. Sasso R.C., Smucker J.D., Hacker R.J., et al. Artificial disc versus fusion: a prospective, randomized study with 2-year follow-up on 99 patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(26):2933-2940. [discussion: 2941-2].
72. Sasso R.C., Smucker J.D., Hacker R.J., et al. Clinical outcomes of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter trial with 24-month follow-up. J Spinal Disord Tech 2007, 20(7):481-491.
73. Coric D., Finger F., Boltes P. Prospective randomized controlled study of the Bryan Cervical Disc: early clinical results from a single investigational site. J Neurosurg Spine 2006, 4(1):31-35.
74. Heller J.G., Sasso R.C., Papadopoulos S.M., et al. Comparison of BRYAN cervical disc arthroplasty with anterior cervical decompression and fusion: clinical and radiographic results of a randomized, controlled, clinical trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34(2):101-107.
75. Cheng L., Nie L., Zhang L., et al. Fusion versus Bryan Cervical Disc in two-level cervical disc disease: a prospective, randomised study. Int Orthop 2009, 33(5):1347-1351.
76. Nabhan A., Ahlhelm F., Shariat K., et al. The ProDisc-C prosthesis: clinical and radiological experience 1 year after surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(18):1935-1941.
77. Nabhan A., Ahlhelm F., Pitzen T., et al. Disc replacement using Pro-Disc C versus fusion: a prospective randomised and controlled radiographic and clinical study. Eur Spine J 2007, 16(3):423-430.
78. Murrey D., Janssen M., Delamarter R., et al. Results of the prospective, randomized, controlled multicenter Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study of the ProDisc-C total disc replacement versus anterior discectomy and fusion for the treatment of 1-level symptomatic cervical disc disease. Spine J 2009, 9(4):275-286.
79. Bhadra A.K., Raman A.S., Casey A.T., et al. Single-level cervical radiculopathy: clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of four techniques of anterior cervical discectomy and fusion and disc arthroplasty. Eur Spine J 2009, 18(2):232-237.
80. Gibson J.A., Waddell G. Surgery for degenerative lumbar spondylosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005, (4). CD001352. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001352.pub3. Accessed November 15, 2009.
81. Carreon L.Y., Glassman S.D., Howard J. Fusion and nonsurgical treatment for symptomatic lumbar degenerative disease: a systematic review of Oswestry Disability Index and MOS Short Form-36 outcomes. Spine J 2008, 8(5):747-755.
82. Berg S., Tullberg T., Branth B., et al. Total disc replacement compared to lumbar fusion: a randomised controlled trial with 2-year follow-up. Eur Spine J 2009, 18(10):1512-1519.
83. Anderson P.A., Sasso R.C., Rouleau J.P., et al. The Bryan Cervical Disc: wear properties and early clinical results. Spine J 2004, 4(6 Suppl):303S-309S.
84. Heidecke V., Burkert W., Brucke M., et al. Intervertebral disc replacement for cervical degenerative disease: clinical results and functional outcome at two years in patients implanted with the Bryan Cervical Disc prosthesis. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2008, 150(5):453-459. [discussion: 459].
85. Mummaneni P.V., Burkus J.K., Haid R.W., et al. Clinical and radiographic analysis of cervical disc arthroplasty compared with allograft fusion: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Neurosurg Spine 2007, 6(3):198-209.
86. Beaurain J., Bernard P., Dufour T., et al. Intermediate clinical and radiological results of cervical TDR (Mobi-C) with up to 2 years of follow-up. Eur Spine J 2009, 18(6):841-850.
87. Park J.H., Roh K.H., Cho J.Y., et al. Comparative analysis of cervical arthroplasty using mobi-c(r) and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion using the Solis(r) -Cage. J Korean Neurosurg Soc 2008, 44(4):217-221.
88. Pimenta L., McAfee P.C., Cappuccino A., et al. Superiority of multilevel cervical arthroplasty outcomes versus single-level outcomes: 229 consecutive PCM prostheses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2007, 32(12):1337-1344.